↓ Skip to main content

Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Biology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
119 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke
Published in
PLoS Biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constance Holman, Sophie K. Piper, Ulrike Grittner, Andreas Antonios Diamantaras, Jonathan Kimmelman, Bob Siegerink, Ulrich Dirnagl

Abstract

Given small sample sizes, loss of animals in preclinical experiments can dramatically alter results. However, effects of attrition on distortion of results are unknown. We used a simulation study to analyze the effects of random and biased attrition. As expected, random loss of samples decreased statistical power, but biased removal, including that of outliers, dramatically increased probability of false positive results. Next, we performed a meta-analysis of animal reporting and attrition in stroke and cancer. Most papers did not adequately report attrition, and extrapolating from the results of the simulation data, we suggest that their effect sizes were likely overestimated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 119 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 5 6%
Slovenia 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 74 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Professor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Psychology 7 8%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 16 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 303. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#34,058
of 12,521,852 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Biology
#103
of 3,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,340
of 351,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Biology
#2
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,521,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.